Father's Rights? Men Want Right To Turn Down Fatherhood

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ViperDragon, Mar 10, 2006.

  1. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    Dang.
    Any thoughts as to why this is? IMO it is the result of de-humanising people into believing that things like formula, etc are better for ones baby. Mothers see the commercials and see the expensive formula and figure that it would be better for there little one cause they deserve the best, not realizing that they already get what it best.
     
  2. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +1
    One study is 19 years old, as far as I can tell, and the other six. Also, neither seems to specify whether the mothers putting their babies to bottle earlier were using a formula, or filling bottles with breast milk, which many a working mother I know are known to do. Hell, my sister had to do it with two of her children, and she and her husband were well off at the time.
     
  3. Spartan-117

    Spartan-117 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Posts:
    1,813
    Trophy Points:
    161
    Likes:
    +0
    Sorry but there should be no such thing as a single parent who needs help. I know in some cases relationships break down beyond saving, however children should only come about when both parents are physically, mentally and financially prepared. Which means, if a relationship breaks down the father, or mother should still be paying their way towards the child's upbringing. If they lose their job or can't find childcare in order to continue work then I'm all for temporary support but responsible and intelligent parents shouldn't need massive amounts of help.
    To cut a long story short I'm pretty sick of paying for other people's fuck ups. Even though I'm a good responsible driver I still basically get raped by the insurance company because of shit heads who have to race about and cause accidents. The tax I pay off my wages and the tax that my parents pay goes to support morons who spawn kids carelessly. It's our tax money that gave our dipshit neighbours a house, that they now use to make a lot of noise and disturb us. It's because of this insane notion of rewarding idiotic and thoughtless actions that we're being kept awake at night by assholes.
    So maybe you can see why I'm less than sympathetic. Maybe if society started rewarding good behaviour and sensible decisions there would be less of this crap.
     
  4. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    I would think that the countless abused single mothers would agree with you. People don't get married thing that it may end in divorce. Shit happeneds, our society cannot stop it from happening, it can only develop a plan and programs to help people when it does happen.
     
  5. Nephthys

    Nephthys Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Posts:
    2,389
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    I'm all for breastfeeding.And has nothing to do with a woman's physical aspect of it. Breast milk is more healthier than bottle milk. I breastfed my daughter.
     
  6. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    I never took the debate that things should be natural. It started when I based on my analogy of taking a test to be allowed to drive a vehicle. Where someone else said that driving a car isn't natural, reproducing is. Which brought up my cooking of food comment.

    The question is, when it comes to natural, where do you draw the line? As misterd stated, everything techincally can be considered natural. But at the same token, if cooking food was as natural as you can get, then other species would be doing the same. Which is an entirely different conversation. The topic of what is natural maybe isn't the issue, as there are so many things that we do everyday that goes against nature. It is a part of human evolution.

    My breast feeding comment, wasn't specifically targeting lower income mothers, but focusing on how uneducated many parents are. In addition to the health benefits, breast feeding has economic benefits. Too a wealthy family, saving money isn't as big of an issue, but to the welfare mother who is claiming she has no money for formula, sorry, unless she is physically unable to breast feed, she is an idiot and I question her parenting skills.

    I think all of us agree that there are a lot of unfit parents out there. How do we as a society educate them? And are they even willing to learn?

    Thank you. we need more mothers like you.
     
  7. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    Fair points, but you offer little to undermine the premise beyond your own suppositions (and six years old is NOT that old for most papers). If you can find contadicting studies, I'd be glad to see them. My point was that you were unfairly characterizing the original argument at innaccurate and discriminatory with nothing to back it up. I think I showed rather quickly that such an idea does have some evidence behind it (I knew because I've read it before myself).
     
  8. misterd

    misterd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    3,704
    Trophy Points:
    256
    Likes:
    +0
    Is it then unnatural for spiders to use silk to make webs, because I don't know other species that do that.

    Howabout pistol shrimp using sonic booms to stun their prey?

    Bombadier beatles using chemical warfare?

    Archer fish knocking insects out of the air by spitting water?

    Elephants to use trunks?

    Camels to have humps?
     
  9. funkatron101

    funkatron101 TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    5,189
    Trophy Points:
    322
    Likes:
    +48
    Ebay:
    You are absolutely correct. My point is, if we are bring up the ethical battle of what is natural and what isn't, who determines what is natural? and if you are so against preventative methods such as sterilization because it is not natural, then does that mean you are also against birth control in general? The car you drive, or the computer you are typing on? Why do we give allowances for some things, and not others?
     
  10. flamepanther

    flamepanther Interested, but not really

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Posts:
    14,410
    Trophy Points:
    312
    Likes:
    +3,911
    I object to the whole idea that reproducing is the point of living. That may be true from a strictly biological and evolutionary point of view, but I don't really think so. Reproduction is necessary for life to continue, so obviously an evolutionary system would encourage it, but where's the actual point, the purpose? Okay, so life continues in a new generation which then repeats the process, but to what end? That's a better question for theologians and philosophers. What science can tell us is that it happens and that it reinforces itself. Purpose doesn't come into it. As human beings, I like to belive we're capable of examining and overriding our instincts (not just the instinct to reproduce), thinking and acting beyond the basic mechanisms of simply surviving to reproduce. The fact that many people choose never to reproduce is only one example of that. I don't think these people see the decision as having rendered their lives "pointless". Enough said, I think.

    On to the actual subject. Sex outside of marriage without intent of reproduction has become a fact in our society. Agree with it or not, it isn't going to change now that people have come to expect it. I think rather than issuing a blanket set of reproductive "rights" or lack thereof that we default to when a pregnancy unintended by either party occurs, each case should be weighed carefully, giving close consideration to the circumstances. There are certainly a lot of deitful or irresponsible fathers out there, but women are equally capable of neglegence or treachery. The situation of a woman claiming to be sterile or on birth control when neither is true has been brought up. It's also happened in the past that even though the man made sure to use a condom, the woman kept the used condom and deliberately used the semen to impregnate herself. I also once read about a case where there was a contractual agreement by both parties before copulation that the man would not be responsible for any resulting child and nether would he have any parental rights (he agreed to be a "donor", but the woman did not want to be impregnated artificially). If I recall, the court tossed out the contract, the man was ordered to pay support, and he was still denied parental rights. Forget whether it's right for the sex to have happened in the first place. Is it right for the father in these cases to basically be scammed?

    I think after hearing testimony from both parents as well as multiple character witnesses and presentation of any relevant evidence and documentation, the two things to determine the outcome should be who, if either parent, is more responsible for the decision to have the child, and what is ultimately best for the child. It's not a clear-cut decision to make, and the system needs to account for that.
     
  11. nkelsch

    nkelsch Do you know this Icon? TFW2005 Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Posts:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    216
    Likes:
    +2
    I remember that case:
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507736.stm
    http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04206/351160.stm

    Here is an even BETTER one:
    http://www.fathersforlife.org/fatherhood/estoppel.htm

    The scary part? the court's reasoning:

    So if a crazy bitch has a baby while in a relationship with you and you act fatherly to them in *ANY* way then you could be legally bound to those kids for life.
     
  12. Streck

    Streck <B><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">QED</B></FONT> Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    9,991
    Trophy Points:
    292
    Likes:
    +1
    I've never been able to get a satisfactory answer out of anyone about why a "purpose" must even exist.
     
  13. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
  14. Darth Megatron

    Darth Megatron Don't tell Lucas!

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    91
    Likes:
    +0
    This topic should be discussed at a pub at about 2 in the morning over some pints, but here are my thoughts.

    There is no set purpose of life. Sorry to all the people who follow a religion, but for me they don't exist. Humans are the result of many different biological factors coming together to form what we know as life and as such, we have developed a false purpose. The false purpose can be defined as what we expect to be in society. Grow up, have a family, die. Society is a humanistic trait that we have developed over time to be able to live in large groups. From a truly biological stance, continuing to exist is the sole purpose in life. From a social point of view our life purpose is defined by those around it. Some religions believe certain things to serve a purpose. To me it is more of a personal thing, to become a contributing member of society, while providing my family and children with the knowledge and ability to survive and succeed in there life and in short continue to reproduce to do the same. When I die, that’s it, I’m done, my impact on society be defined as who I left behind verses, what I left behind.
     
  15. BigPrime3000

    BigPrime3000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    3,407
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    I don't understand why people have problems with the purpose of life being to just reproduce.

    It's a brilliant purpose IMO, especially if you think about it in the context of life in general surviving, not one specific species. I like to look at life as a force in it's own right not bound to one specific species. If you believe in evolution it makes sense since everything evolved from one single organism.
     
  16. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +1
    Six years is not that old, true. But, 19 year old surveys from Singapore can only tell us so much. Obviously there are more than a few poorly educated, or neglectful parents out in the world, but there are far more low income parents who have to find economically sound ways to raise their children as best they can.

    A survey stating that womenof a certain social status are lowering their rates of breast feeding, but doesn;t tell us whether they are switching to formula, or filling bottles with their own milk, is rather flawed. It's like asking an average family how often they order pizza, without asking how often they cook vegetables.
     
  17. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +1
    While I don't agree that everything we do is natural, this idea that there is a blanket sense of "nature" for every species on the planet doesn't quite work for me. Evolution happens on different levels, obviously. Animals meant to eat raw meat have evolved to the point where they can process iut and get all the nutrients they need out of it. Humans were never designed to eat raw flesh, and we still aren't. In fact, we aren't exactly designed to eat red meat of any kind, cooked or raw. However, we did develop a brain that allowed us to think outside the nature "box" if you will. Our weak bodies needed help, so our powerful brains developed tools to aid us. Somebody figured out that meat hurts the stomach LESS if it is cooked in fire, so we started cooking it. This more than likey occured more in times of drought back in the day, as we're better off on the herbivorous side of the omnivore spectrum, but I digress.

    The point is, nature is different for every species. What we need is not what a wolf, or a lion needs, there's really no reason to comapre the two.
     
  18. Wing alpha

    Wing alpha <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Posts:
    3,243
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Likes:
    +0
    I have a reason for me to exist thats all I care about.

    Is there a point in life? dont know and maybe someday Ill care,

    however whats the point of wondering about things, that probably end up messing our heads more than they are already. what matters is the moment beinglived. nothing else.
     
  19. Streck

    Streck <B><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">QED</B></FONT> Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Posts:
    9,991
    Trophy Points:
    292
    Likes:
    +1
    You misunderstand. I have a problem with the very idea that there has to be any purpose. The question, "What's our purpose for existing?" means nothing to me because I don't buy the premise that there even has to be a reason. No one's been able to give a satisfactory explanation of why such a reason must exist.
     
  20. Random Autobot

    Random Autobot Soviet Kanukistani

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,608
    Trophy Points:
    211
    Likes:
    +1
    There cannot be a satisfactory reason for someone who does not see the importance of the need itself. You don't seem to be at all bothered by the notion that there is no point to life, so how could an explanation satisfy you?

    I'm essentially in the same boat as you. I really don't think there is any grand purpose in our existence, beyond having our individual life to live, which we all do. It seems to me that the majority of humans need a purpose in order to keep themselves going at all. We've developed these ideas that we are greater than we are, more meaningful than anything else that is organic on this planet, thus a need to have a "point" to it all. We want to see ourselves as some sort of godlike figures ( and I am NOT trying to turn this into a religious thread) when we'd all be much better off not worrying about our lack of importance in the universe.